JEROEN JANSEN the Aulularia Edition Which Served As Basis For

JEROEN JANSEN

The Aulularia edition which served as basis for the Warenar*

I. INTRODUCTION

If, without the help of manuscript evidence, whether autograph or apo- graph, one were to lay the first printed edition of the Warenar (1617)1 next to any edition of its model, the Aulularia of Plautus (2nd century Bc), one would soon find differences in both content and style. What we have here is of course an adaptation, an adjustment of time and circumstances which leaves its model behind by almost 2000 years and as many kilometres. This adjustment to "s Landts ghelegentheyt', the country's ways and manners, had to result in a full-blooded Dutch comedy. The adjustment is loose, now closer to the original, then again completely free with inventions of its own, omissions and alterations, and always equally unexpected in the strategy of its adaptation. However whimsical the relation between model and imitation may be, there are passages where both texts seem to come rather close to each other. These may possibly contribute to finding an answer to the question on which edition of the Roman comedy the Warenar was originally based. Establishing which Aulularia edition was used, could contribute to a more accurate understanding of the Dutch text. Moreover, it will provide future Warenar scholars with reliable grounds for statements on a text which to such an important extent goes back to a literary precursor. Translating and certainly reworking an original can lead to distortions of the direct relationship between the two texts. Of course the adapter natu- rally endeavoured to hide and solve possible errors in the Latin, but obvi- ously not to point out and represent them. If, for example, one edition of the model has a printing error making people drink 'linum' instead of 'vinum', then in the imitation, even if the used edition was that in which the corrupt reading occurred, people simply drink 'wine' and not 'flax'. A special difficulty in this kind of investigation consists in the fact that a similarity or difference between original and imitation can always be due to coincidence. If in one edition of the model the variant 'beer' can be found, which also

* This investigation was begun in 1986, initially as an M.A. thesis in my optional subject of Neolatin under the supervision of Dr P. Tuynman. I thank Ms G.C. Kuiper and Dr Tuynman for allowing me the use of their material relating to the textual history of Plautus. I am grateful to Dr Luc Korpel who read the English version and offered valuable advice. i The first edition of 1617has been published in facsimile in P.C. Hooft, Alle degedrukteweaken 16II-1738,edited by W. Hellinga and P. Tuynman, vol. 2 (Amsterdam 1972),pp. 225-67. All quotations come from this edition. 84 occurs in the imitation, whereas all other editions of the model read 'wine', then there is no reason to assume, just on the basis of this one passage, that the edition reading `beer' was the actual source. The adapter may have used an edition reading 'wine' and for some reason of his own have chosen to render this item as 'beer'. It will be clear that it is above all an accumulation of possible indications 'pointing in the same direction' which can reduce the role of chance: a reason why in research of this kind as many relevant 2 passages as possible will have to be drawn upon.2 Of what edition then was the copy of the Aulularia which P.C. Hooft used as the basis for his adaptation?3 For his excellent edition of the text of the Warenar, P. Leendertz junior, the only one who even asked questions publicly on this point, made use of an arbitrary though contemporary edition (Taub- mann 1612) of the Latin comedy, suggesting that perhaps another edition was used by Hooft, but that he had been unable to find reliable indications.4 Except for a few early 'Einzelausgaben' of the play, the Aulularia was published between i472 and 1617 in some seventy printed editions of (all) the twenty comedies of Plautus then known.5 It is therefore a dire necessity to arrange the recensions (textually revised editions), if only for the simple

2 For a comparable investigation (but then in relation to a 'prose translation', i.e. P.C. Hooft's Sch?nhei'ligh)see E.K. Grootes, Dramatischestruktuur in tweevoud.Een vergelijkendonderzoek van Pietro Aretino'sHipocrito en P.C. HooftsSchijnheiligh (Culemborg 1973;thesis Amsterdam), pp. 23-54, esp. 46ff. 3 For 'Hooft' always read: Hooft (and Coster). The authorship of the Warenaris an old bone of contention. It can be assumed that Hooft had a (significant)part in the Dutch adaptation. But the collaboration of Samuel Coster (and perhaps also of others) is by no means improbable. The play was anonymous and remained anonymous until the edition of 1661when Coster's name appeared next to Hooft's on the title-page. See the polemics on this problem between P. Leendertz jr and F.A. Stoett in: Taal enLetteren, 7 (1897)and 8 (1898);and for a concise view thereof see: P.C. Hooft, Warenar,ed. C. Kruyskamp (Culemborg 51979(lig6i)), pp. 6-8. 4 Warenarvan P.C. Hooften S. Coster,ed. P. Leendertz jr. [= ??ze?ol.scheherdrukken 9-11] (Zwolle n.d. [1896]), p. vii, n.*: 'Van de Aulularia gebruikte ik de editie van Taubmann, 1612. Toch is misschien bij de vertaling eene andere uitgave gebruikt, maar eene betrouwbare aanwijzing daarvan heb ik niet kunnen vinden. Wel is in het tweede tooneel van het tweede bedrijf de verdeeling der verschillende gezegden over de beide koks in den Warenar anders dan bij Taubmar.n, maar ik heb geene uitgave kunnen vinden, waarmede de Warenar volkomen over- eenstemt. De verschillen zijn trouwens van dien aard, dat ze op eene vertaling als deze weinig invloed kunnen hebben.' [I have used Taubmann's 1612edition of the Aulularia.But perhaps it was another edition which was used for the translation, though I have been unable to find a reliable indication to this effect. Admittedly, in the second scene of the second act the allocation of the various speeches among the two cooks in the Warenardiffers from that in the Taubmann edition, but I could not find any edition with which the Warenaragrees fully. The differences at any rate are such that they cannot have much influence on a translation like this one.] But Leendertz does not say which editions he has consulted in order to reach this conclusion. 5 An extensive catalogue of these editions can be found in:J.A. Fabricius, BibliothecaLatina, siae Notitiaeauctorum veterum Latinorum, vol. i (Venice 1728),pp. 3-30; F.A. Ebert, Allgemeinesbibliogra- phischesLexikon, vol. 2 (Hildesheim 1965 [repr. of Leipzig cols. 441-51 and; F.L.A. Schwei- ger, BibliographischesLexicon, vol. 2 (Amsterdam 1962 [repr. of Leipzig 1834]), pp. 758-81. The reprinting of the studies of Ebert and Schweiger is in itself proof enough that recent research in this field is lacking. 85 reason that far from all of these editions are easily accessible. A literal examination of all Plautus editions would also be both superfluous and time- consuming, as the most shocking alteration in the make-up of the text to be expected within one and the same recension will consist in no more than an incidentally corrected or sneaked-in misprint. In what follows I shall justify the arrangement of recensions I have chosen. The textual tradition - including the arrangement into recensions - of printed editions of Plautus's comedies has been determined to a large extent, in addition to the possible conjectures by editors or their assistants, by the use or non-use of one or more manuscripts, where the discovery or use of a new manuscript can bring about a (fundamental) alteration in the textual tradition of printed editions. This implies that besides the textual history of the printed editions (section 3), the manuscript tradition of the text should be studied also and even in first place (section 2). In this respect I have largely limited myself to summarising and eclectically reporting the most important parts of what has already been published on the manuscripts and printed editions. As far as I can see it now, considering the kind and scope of such an examination and the research results at present available, there would have been no point in undertaking my own in-depth research into the relationship between the manuscripts and the printed editions. After the sections on the manuscript tradition and the history of printed editions, section 4 serves to list those passages in the various Aulularia editions which are relevant for a comparison with the Warenar.

2. THE MANUSCRIPTS

Plautus wrote his comedies for the theatre, not for a reading audience. It is therefore permissible to imagine that after his death (i84 Bc) the texts of his comedies came into or remained in the hands of actors and directors. In all likelihood they were thereby adapted for use in performances, some lines were deleted, interpolations added and the language was modernised.6 When in the first century Bc, following a period of little interest in fabulae palliatae (plays with (also) other than Roman subject matter), greater notice was again taken of these plays, the comedies attributed to Plautus were published in the form then current - therefore probably adapted and modernised.7 At this time Roman philologists tried to bring about a distinction between those plays which could truly be ascribed to Plautus and those which had their origin in a circle of imitators.' It is said that Varro (116-27 Bc) made a more

6 F. Leo, PlautinischeForschungen zur Kritikund Geschichteder IComodie(Dublin/Zurich 1973 [repr. of '1912; '1895], pp. 29-30, 54; W.M. Lindsay, The ancienteditions of Plautus(Oxford Ig04), p. I. 7 Leo, op. cit. (n. 6), p. 54; see F. Ritschl, ParergonPlautinorum Terentianorumque (Berlin 1845 [repr. Amsterdam 1965]), pp. 88-go. 8 M. Schanz, Geschichteder riimischenLiteratur ..., vol. i: 'Die r6mische Literatur in der Zeit der 86 definitive arrangement: he is credited with establishing the number of comedies agreed by all grammarians to be 'Plautine' at twenty-one, the so-called fabulae Varronianae.9 The renowned grammarian Valerius Probus (ist century AD) seems to have subjected the comedies of Plautus, by then once again fallen into oblivion, to textual criticism: according to the testimony of Suetonius, Probus took it upon himself to have errors removed [emendare], to introduce colometria (in the cantica) and to add punctuation to the plays [distinguere], and to note his views on the text in the margin by critical signs (`notae') as well as supply arguments for them [adnotare].10 He himself or one of his pupils may well have brought out an edition of the twenty-one plays." Neither this edition/2 nor any possible manuscripts of Plautus himself,'3 formed the direct basis for any of the manuscripts of the comedies still extant. Several characteristics indicate clearly that there must have been a

Republik'; 4e neubearb. Aufl. von C. Hosius (Munchen 1927),p. 57. Cf. Fabricius, op. cit. (n. 5), p. 13. In his NoctesAtticae (3.3.I I)the Latin writer Aulus Gellius (2nd century AD)states that it was thought that about 130comedies were circulating under the name of Plautus ('feruntur autem sub Plauti nomine comoediae circiter centum atque triginta'). See Ritschl, op. cit. (n. 7), pp. 92ff., esp. pp. II2-I3. 9 On Varro's efforts: Leo, op. cit. (n. 6), pp. 19, 24ff., 65ff. Cf. also the recent study by Karl Heinz Chelius, concerned with the first eight comedies of Plautus, Die codicesminores des Plautus. Forschungenzur Geschichteund Kritik (Baden-Baden 1989), pp. 10-12. In the printed editions of Plautus of the fifteenth to the eighteenth centuries it is always twentycomedies which are spoken of. The Vidularia,which has only survived in fragments, is not included in the number (cf. the list in Fabricius, op. cit. (n. 5), pp. 6-13). Leo (op. cit. (n 6), pp. I8ff., s8111)doubts whether Varro actually selected just these twenty-one plays. He believes that in the age of Hadrian (117-38AD) Varro was misunderstood and the twenty-one were brought together and published in a single corpus as 'Varronianae' (for a list of literature on this problem see: Schanz-Hosius, op. cit. (n. 8), p. 57). In any event, the 'Varronianae' were accepted as the canon: Cicero quotes from this group exclusively(Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 6), p. 30) and after the second century ADalmost no grammarian quotes from other plays that might have been considered as by Plautus (Leo, op. cit. (n. 6), p. 21 ; G. Pasquali, Storiadella tradizionee criticadel testo(Florence 1952; 1st edn. 1934),p. 348). 10 Suetonius, De grammaticiset rhetoribus24 (Suetonio.Grammatici e retoricz),ed. F. della Corte (Turin 1968),pp. 45-7: '(Probus) emendare ac distinguere et adnotare curavit ...' Cf. Leo, op. cit. (n. 6), pp. 23-9. The interpretation of emendare,distinguere and adnotareaccording to Leo, op. cit. pp. 29, 49ff., esp. p. 59 (cf. pp. 23-9 on the reason why the plays which Varro had cherished in the first century Be, had less than a hundred years later sunk into oblivion); and Pasquali, op. cit. (n. 9), PP- 343-4. I I Pasquali, op. cit. (n. 9), p. 343. Cf. Leo, op. cit. (n. 6), p. 29: 'Ob er eine Ausgabe der von ihm zusammengebrachten Sticke veranstaltet hat, bleibt ungewiss'. 12 As Leo (op. cit. (n. 6; orig. l912), pp. 49-55, 58ff.) still mistakenly believed. 13 Lindsay (op. cit. (n. 6), pp. 35ff.; cf. pp. 142-3)still thought that the AmbrosianPalimpsest (A) had been directly copied from Plautus's manuscript and that the Palatine recension must be a copy dating from the time that the plays of Plautus were performed frequently, two generations after the death of the Roman author -- more on these manuscripts below. Pasquali (op. cit. (n. 9), pp. 336ff.) rejects this theory: both the AmbrosianPalimpsest (A) and the Palatine recension (P) transmit only the twenty-one FabulaeVarronianae (No. 21, the Vidularia,is only announced in P) and not all the comedies attributed to Plautus in antiquity. Moreover, in both recensions the group of comedies beginning with the letter 'C', which have not been alphabetically arranged in the modern manner, can be seen to observe the same sequence ( as follows: Captivi,Curculio, Casina, Cistellaria),which points to one and the same model. 87

now lost edition between the first and fourth centuries AD which has been authoritative here.'4 The manuscript tradition of the Plautine comedies can be divided into two branches: the Ambrosian palimpsest (A) from the fifth century AD or before, and the Palatine recension (P), an archetype from the eighth or ninth century which can be reconstructed with the help of a number of manuscripts from the tenth to the twelfth centuries. The first branch consists of only one manuscript, the Ambrosian palimpsest (A). This codex, assumed to date from before the fifth century AD'5 and probably originating in the Irish monastery of Bobbio (Italy), is at present kept in the Ambrosian Library in Milan (shelf-mark S.P. g/13-20; once G 82 sup.). Although this manuscript originally contained all the twenty-one fabulae Varronianae, the leaves on which the Amphitruo, Asinaria, Aulularia and Curculio were written and almost all those which held the Captivi and the Vidularia have been lost. 16 In research on the Aulularia this representative has therefore no part to play. The other branch, for which manuscripts in minuscules of the tenth to the twelfth centuries are the testimony, is usually referred to as the Palatine recension (P), because the two most important representatives of this 'family' belong to the Palatine library at Heidelberg, i.e. B (the Vetus Camerariz) and C (the Codex Decurtatus).17 Archetype P (of the eighth or ninth century), from which practically all manuscripts belonging to the Palatine recension are derived, probably had a proto-archetype from the time of the Ambrosian palimpsest (A), which therefore is at least three centuries older.'8

14 References in the prologue of the Casina and Pseudolus(e.g. 'Plautinae fabulae'; 'veteres fabulae') suggest new productions of the comedies for a public unfamilar with Plautus. On the other hand, certain formal elements - duplications of lines - do not point directly to stage productions. C. Questa ('L'antichissima edizione dei canticadi Plauto, origine, caratteristiche, vicende', in: Revistadi filologiae di istruzioneclassica, 102 (1974),pp. 58-79 and pp. 172-88(revised text of a lecture of London, March 1972),esp. pp. 172ff.),who believes that this manuscript must have come about in the 2nd century AD('eta dioclezianea o piuttosto constantiniana'), has been able to confirm Pasquali's view with new arguments, especially through research into the metrics of the cantica. 15 G. Studemund, T. MacciPlauti fabularumreliquiae ambrosianae codicis rescripti ambrosiani apogra- phumconf et ed. (Berlin 1889), p. xxii; W.M. Lindsay, The Captiaiof Plautus(London igoo), p. 1; Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 6), p. 79; Pasquali, op. cit. (n. 9), p. 332 (cf. Questa, op. cit. (n. 14),p. 173).E.A. Lowe (CodicesLatini Antiquiores,vol. 3 (Oxford 1938),No. 345)dates the manuscript within the fifth century. So does Chelius, op. cit. (n. 9), p. xi. 16 Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 15: 1900), p. I. 17 W.M. Lindsay, The Palatinetext of Plautus(Oxford 1896), p. 3; P. Sonnenburg, 'T. Maccius Plautus', in: PaulysReal-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertums*issensckaft, vol. 14 (Stuttgart 1930),cols. 95-126, esp. col. 123. 18 Leo, op. cit. (n. 6), pp. 14-18;Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 17),p. 4; and W.M. Lindsay, The Codex Turnebiof Plautus (Oxford 1898), pp. 7-8. Details on the Ambrosian and Palatine archetypes: Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 6), pp. 35ff. A comparison between the archetype of P and the Ambrosian palimpsest (A) is made by Leo, op. cit. (n. 6), pp. i4ff., 151-62;and Lindsay (n. 15: 1900),pp. 7ff. Cf. Questa, op. cit. (n. 14),p. 63, n. i. Lindsay ('The MSS. of the first eight plays of Plautus', in: 88

From this proto-archetype the codex Turnebus (T)19 is directly derived, a manuscript of the ninth or tenth century which the French scholar Adrien Turnebe used in the sixteenth century and which was probably destroyed in i567.z° Several separate readings in the Adversaria of this rhurnebus bear witness to this manuscript. Turnebus here explains and corrects innumer- able passages in classical writers, but he mentions only a few Plautus passages on the basis of the lost manuscript T.2' In addition, a complete set of variant readings from the Persa, Poenulus, the first half of the Rudens, the second half of the Pseudolus and parts of the Bacchides have been taken from this manuscript. These variants, marginalia written in the hand of Fran?ois Duaren (r5og-5g), are now preserved in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, in a copy of the i54o Gryphius edition.22 On the strength of the Adversaria, but especially of the Gryphius edition 'cum notis marginalibus MS Fr. Duareni', it is possible to reconstruct a part of the manuscript used and to determine its place in the stemma. There are moreover the annotations of Lambinus and J J. Scaliger who may still have used T. Considering the references by Lambinus to 'libri veteres', Lindsay believes that this humanist probably had at least one copy of Turnebus's marginalia, which functioned independently

The ClassicalReview, io (1896),pp. 319-21,esp. pp. 320-1)seeks witnesses for readings in P (for the first eight comedies) in the corrections of B, in the text of B and D, in manuscripts E, V, 0 and J and in the corrections of V. Manuscript T which in 1896 was not yet included in the investigation must now be added to them. 19 That, unlike the other Palatine manuscripts, T is independent of the later archetype P is evident from a number of both good and bad readings in the text which differ from all other Palatine manuscripts, as Lindsay (op. cit. (n. 18:1898),pp. 7ff.) has shown. His interest in T is revealed in a series of articles (see: J.D. Hughes, A bibliographyof Scholarshipon Plautus(Amsterdam 1975),pp. 12-13,Nos. 216, 217, 219, 220 and 223). 20 Lindsay op. cit. (n. 15:1900),pp. 1-2; A. Klotz, 'Die Plautus-handschrift des Adrianus Turnebus', in: Philologus,95 (1942),pp. I2I-4.I, esp. p. 122. 21 These text passages were compiled by G. Goetz in the large edition of the Poenulus(T. Maccius Plautus, Poenulus,ed. G. Goetz (Leipzig, Teubner, 1884), pp. viiiff.). It concerns a few passages in the Asinaria,Captivi, Casina, Curculio, Mostellaria, Poenulus, Pseudolus, Rudens and Stichus (cf. Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 18:1898),pp. 6ff.; Klotz, op. cit. (n. 20), p. 121). 22 Cf. Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 18: 1898),pp. i-6, g-I I. The copy in question ('Plautus apud Gryph. i5q.o cum not. marginalibus MS Fr. Duareni'; Bodleian Library shelf-mark Linc. 8" D 105) represented lot No. 470 in the sale of the library of Nicolaas Heinsius in 1683. Perhaps his father Daniel Heinsius had received this book fromJ.J. Scaliger (Lindsay ibid., p. 3): for according to Lindsay (ibid., p. i, n. 2, p. 22, and p. 22, n. 2) it is Scaliger's hand which - on the fly-leaf of the Plautus edition - ascribes the marginaliato Duaren: 'Hae notae in margine sunt manu Francisci DuareniJuriscons. celeberrimi ex veteri codice'. From i548 to 1551Duarenus lived in Paris where he is said to have been on friendly terms with Turnebus. The proof for stating that the source of his observations in the margin lay in the manuscript of Turnebus is to be found in a remark at the beginning of his 'notae': 'ex fragmentis monast[erii] s. columnae [read: Columbae] senon[ensis] urbis Adriani Tornebi'. The manuscript, which therefore belonged to the Benedictine monastery of St Columba at Sens, was probably destroyed in 1567 when the Huguenots plundered this building. In that case Turnebus - or someone else after his death in 1565 - returned the manuscript to the monastery after the completion of his Adversaria(on all of this see: Lindsay, ibid., pp. 1-7; Klotz, op. cit. (n. 20), pp. 121-2). 89 from the manuscript on which the Gryphius edition has been based.23 According to Lindsay, where Scaliger mentions a 'vetus codex' as his source, only the marginalia of the Gryphius edition or a copy annotated in exactly the same manner can be referred to.24 However this may be, for our Aulularia investigation this manuscript and its testimonies do not provide any relevant material - except perhaps for a few incidental instances via Lambinus. 25 In discussing the remaining manuscripts of the Palatine recension (B, C, D, E, O, J and V), it seems sensible to distinguish between those manuscripts which contain the first eight comedies of Plautus (including the Aulularia as the third play) in whole or in part and those which represent the last twelve comedies only. Such a distinction is needed because archetype P (of the eighth or ninth century) was at one point very probably divided into two volumina so as to make it easier and quicker for it to be copied. However, the second part, which comprised the last twelve plays, was so badly neglected that in the late Middle Ages only the first eight plays were known.26 The discovery of the Codex Ursinianus (D) in the fifteenth century led to the rediscovery of the last twelve of Plautus's comedies, which was welcomed as if it were the revelation of a classical work believed to have been lost.27 Three early minuscule manuscripts (B, C, and D), written in Germany, all derive from a lost original (PB) which was copied from archetype P at a later time than that in which T originated. 28 These three manuscripts are: B, the codex vetus (tenth century); C, the codex Decurtatus (early eleventh century); D, the codex Ursinianus (eleventh century). Manuscript B, also called vetus Camerarii,29 which originally belonged to the collection of some German monastery and is now in the Vatican (shelf-mark Pal. Lat. 1615), contains all twenty plays as well as the Querolus (a late imitation of Plautus). In its first stage it had been a transcript of only the first 23 Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 18:1898),pp. 13-18,esp. p. 16. 24 Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 18:1898),pp. 18-23, esp. pp. 22-3. 25 Cf. Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 18:1898),p. 14, n. i and p. 17.Three Aululariapassages occur in the Sambucus edition (M. Acccius Plautus, CoemoediaeXX olima Joachim.Camerario emendatae nunc vero plus quamCC versibus... restitutaeopera et diligenliaJ. Sambuci(Antwerp 1566),p. 840) in a short list headed 'Ex Adriani Turnebi libris adversariorum in Plautum observationes'. 26 Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 15:1900),pp. 2-3. The reason for the neglect of the second part of these comedies in the Middle Ages may well be connected with the fact that it (this second part) had no title-page. Of the Latin comedies the (earlier) Middle Ages knew only the six comedies of Terence and the Querolus,a play then generally ascribed to Plautus, but in fact originating in the fourth century AD (W. Cloetta, Beiträgezur Litteraturgeschichtedes Mittelaltersund der Renaissance,vol. i. 'Komodie und Trag6die im Mittelalter' (Leipzig 1976; repr. of Halle 1890), p. 14). 27 Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 17),p. 5; R. Sabbadini, Le scopertedei codici Latini e Greci ne'secoli XIVe XV (Florence igt4), p. 17. 28 An accurate description of the relations between the Palatine manuscripts is given in Lindsay's ThePalatine text of Plautusof 1896 (op. cit. n. 17).Cf. Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 15:1900),p. 2. 29 The codexvetus Camerarii gets its name from its owner-editor J. Kammermeister (Camerarius, t5oo-7q); see T. Marcius Plautus. Aulularia, ed. W. Stockert (Stuttgart, Teubner, 1983), p. i. 90 eight comedies. The last twelve were added at a (somewhat) later stage. C and D are closely related to each other. They are direct transcripts of an original PCD which in turn had been transcribed (via PB) from P. C (the codex Decurtatus), which was once in the abbey of Freising near Munich and is now in Heidelberg (shelf-mark Pal. Lat. 1613), is a minuscule manuscript of the eleventh century which contains the last twelve plays only.30 Of the manuscripts containing the Aulularia B is among the most interest- ing. The relation of B to D with regard to the last twelve plays differs from that concerning the first eight comedies: as regards the last twelve comedies B is on a level which is closer to P than D, on the same level as the lost original of C and D (i.e. PCD). For the first eight plays however, B and D are closely related as copies from one and the same original (PBD).31The first part (comedies 1-8) of B was probably corrected from archetype P. These corrections, to which Lindsay gave the symbol B3,3zdid not come about through the use of the original of B and D (= PBD), but via a manuscript of great value which contains several lines (e.g. Aulularia 454) that were omitted in archetype PBD and which has good readings in several instances where PBD is corrupt.33 All the B3 corrections were by the same hand which must have been that of a corrector, seeing that he always neatly filled in the gaps intentionally left in B because of lack of comprehension.34 He used an original of the Palatine recension which contained all the twenty comedies and the Querolus and was in its turn probably itself the original of PBD.35The manuscript from which PBD had its first eight plays copied and PCD its last twelve may well have been archetype P; this could imply that PB3 is the same as P.36

3o Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 17),pp. 6-7; Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 15:1900),pp. 3-5. 31 Cf. Lindsay, op. cit. (n. i5:igoo), pp. 4-5 and Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 17),p. 8 for a comparison between B and D as regards the first eight comedies. Where B contains a reading which appears to be part of an earlier and more original phase than the reading of D, it is the work of a corrector who must have had another, better manuscript now lost, at his disposal (Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 8:1896), p. 320). 32 Corrections by the same hand made during or shortly after the writing of B are marked BI by Lindsay (op. cit. (n. 17),p. 9; cf. p. 19 sub i). 33 Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 17),p. 9; Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 15:1900),p. 5; C. Questa, 'Per un'edizione delle Bacchides',in: Rivistadi culturaclassica e medioevale,5 (1963), pp. 215-54and pp. 348-65, esp. pp. 233ff.There is probably an apparently detailed description of the corrections B3in respect to B in the study which answered Lindsay's call for further research (op. cit. (n. 17),pp. 8-9), but which I have not been able to obtain: C. Lindskog, De correcturi.ssecundae manus in codicevetere Plautino (Lund 1900)(see Schanz-Hosius, op. cit. (n. 8), p. 85; Sonnenburg, op. cit. (n. 17,col. 123;Questa, ibid., p. 230, n. 23; Stockert, op. cit. (n. 29), p. i, n. 5). Cf. the discussion of B3 for the Bacchidesby Questa, ibid. 34 Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 17),pp. 9-10. 35 Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 17),pp. 10-12;cf. pp. 19-20sub 2). According to Lindsay, the corrections in comedies 9-20 in B are of no more value than those of B2in the first part and arc by various hands (cf. my n. 32 above). 36 Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 17),pp. 12-13;cf. p. 20 sub 3); Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 15:1900),p. 5; cf. 91

The codex Ursinianus (D, shelf-mark Vat. Lat. 3870) dates from the eleventh century and gets its name from its former owner, Cardinal Orsini. The manuscript, written in minuscules and discovered in the late Middle Ages (i428), contains of the first eight plays only the Amphitruo, Asinaria and Aulularia completely and of the Captivi only lines 1-503. Presumably we here have two separate manuscripts bound together.37 Where the first eight comedies are concerned38 D is next to B in the sense that both manuscripts were copied from the same original, PBD. Since D lacks the corrections of B (i.e. B3), this manuscript is of lesser value. Because of the many imitations in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries - especially of comedies g-20 - this manuscript is of course important for the history of the printed editions. Poggio announced the discovery of this manuscript in a letter to Niccolo Niccoli of 26 February r42g.3y One of Poggio's copyists made a faithful copy of the Ursinianus with its twenty comedies (shelf-mark Vat. Lat. The corrections and additions by Poggio himself can be recognised only in those passages which his copyist failed to understand in the original;41 elsewhere (especially in the second half of the manuscript) Cardinal Jean Jouffroy, who obtained Poggio's copy in i46o, noted rare and difficult words from the text in the margin.42 Six other manuscripts (E, V, J, Ca, Osb. and 0) were copied from a lost original PEJ which itself was a copy of PBD. Their importance lies mainly in the fact that they can provide a faithful reading for B where B has diverged from its original and for those parts which are lacking in D. According to Thomson and Tarrant, E and V were directly copied from PEJ, Chelius here assumes an intervening link PE.43 E is in the Ambrosian Library in Milan (shelf-mark I 257 inf.); the manuscript dates from the second half of the

Questa, op. cit. (n. 33), p. 221. 37 Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 17),p. 7. 38 Scc Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 15:1900),p. 4 n. 39 On the discovery and subsequent complications of the manuscript: R. Sabbadini, Storiae criticadi testilatini (Catania rgr4), pp. 327ff. C.; Questa, Per la storiadel testodi Plautonell' Umanesimn. I. La `recensio' diPoggio Bracciolini [= Q,uaderni Athena6] (Rome 1968),pp. 8ff. Poggio did not read the manuscript until r43r (Questa, ibid., p. 12). 4o A description of Poggio's copy as well as the account of an investigation into the relationship of this manuscript of Poggio (Vat. Lat. 1629, sometimes indicated as G) with the 'Itala recensio' and with the copies made by Niccoli and Guarino is found in Questa, op. cit. (n. 39), pp. 41-61. 41 Questa marks the copyist's corrections as G2, those of Poggio himself as G3 (op. cit. (n. 39), pp. q9ff.). Poggio seems to have checked his copyist's work against D (ibid., pp. 50-1). 42 Questa, op. cit. (n. 39), pp. 42-4. For literature on Jouffroy see in particular, p. 44, n. 37. 43 See R.M. Thomson, 'A Thirteenth-century Plautus Florilegium from Bury St. Edmunds Abbey', in: Antichton,8 (1974), pp. 29-43, esp. P. 35; T.J. Tarrant, 'Plautus', in: Texts and Transmission.A Survq of theLatin Classics,ed. L.D. Reynolds (Oxford 1983),pp. 302-7, esp. p. 306; and Chelius, op. cit. (n. 9), pp. rr3ff., esp. pp. 128-30. 92 twelfth century,44 has not been revised from a touched-up text by a later scholar, but a fifteenth-century corrector completed the part lacking from the Aulularia (11. 192-605) according to the 'Itala recensio'.45 Leiden Univer- sity Library holds manuscript V (shelf-mark Voss. Lat. 4°. 30) of the end of the eleventh century which lacks the Amphitruo, Asinaria, Aulularia (11. i-i8q) and Epidicus (11.245 to the end).46 From the beginning to the Captivi (c. 1. 800), this manuscript, once the property of Isaac Vossius, has been corrected in pale yellow ink.47 According to Lindsay, these corrections (V2) are derived from an inferior copy of what he calls 'PE' (in Chelius Chelius sees in this 'copy' the lost manuscript PJ which also served as the basis of O, J, Ca and Osb.48 In the British Library (shelf-mark Royal i5 C XI) a manuscript (J) dating from the beginning of the twelfth century with signs of fire damage is preserved. This codex Londinensis contains a large number of textual corrup- tions resulting from the 'improvements' made according to his understanding by a medieval scholar.49 0 is part of the Ottoboni collection of the Vatican (shelf-mark Ottob. Misc. Lat. 687); it dates from the eleventh century and contains only a fragment of the Captivi (11. 400-555) .50 Further material is available in a manuscript by the English monk Osbern of Gloucester (c. 1150), Osb., who quotes numerous passages from the first eight comedies of Plautus in his lexico-grammatical treatise Derivationes as examples of individual words and their derivations.5' Finally, a manuscript Ca, dating from the thirteenth century, is to be found in the collection of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge (shelf-mark 225/240). It contains excerpts (mainly just one or two lines) from Amph., Asin., Aul., Capt., Curc., Cas., Cist. and Epid. and in the reproduction of these it shares errors with 0, 44 Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 18:1896),p. 320; Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 15:1900),p. 6; Chelius, op. cit. (n. 9), pp. 82ff. On this manuscript E in particular: A. Tontini, 'Il codice delle "otto commedie" di Plauto, Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, I 257 inf.', in: Stud. Urb. ser. B 3, 56 (1983),pp. 63-88. 45 As regards the last twelve plays, the 'Itala recensio' is based on D; for the first plays this 'recensio' appears to depend on a manuscript which had at a later stage been 'polished' (Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 15:1900),p. 6). 46 Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 15:1900),p. 6; Chelius, op. cit. (n. 9), pp. '7gff. 47 Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 18:1896),pp. 319-20. 48 Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 18:1896),pp. 319-20; Lindsay, op. cit. (n. t5:tgoo), p. 6. In detail on these corrections (V2)which, while they give 'zwar nicht wenige richtige Lesarten' not found in V, have also 'sehr viele richtige oder richtigere Lesarten der Handschrift V durch Fehler oder falsche Konjekturen ersetzt': Chelius, op. cit. (n. 9), pp. 47-51, esp. p. 51; and pp. II3ff. (on 49 Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 18:1896),p. 319; Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 15:1900),p. 6. Cf. Chelius, op. cit. (n. 9), pp. 23-6. On this manuscript in particular: R.M. Thomson, 'British Library Royal 15 C XI. A Manuscript of Plautus' Plays from Salisbury Cathedral (c. iioo)', in: Scriplorium,40 (1986),pp. 82-7. 50 Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 18:1896),p. 319. This fragmentary manuscript which in respect of J shows a 'corrected' text (Lindsay, ibid.), could for that reason be more closely related to this London manuscript J (Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 17),p. 14).Cf. Chelius, op. cit. (n. 9), pp. lgff., pp 271f. (on the relationship between 0 and J). 51 Chelius, op. cit. (n. 9), pp. 66ff. The 'Derivationes' of Osbern were first published in 1836by Angelo Mai (Chelius, ibid., p. 66, n. 2). 93

J, Osb. and This brings us, in the footsteps of Lindsay, and as regards the last six manuscripts mentioned, especially of Chelius, to the following stemma of the Palatine family :53

52 Chelius, op. cit. (n. 9), pp. 5Iff., p. 57. 53 See Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 17),p. 20; Plautus. Comédies,ed. A. Ernout, vol. I (Paris, Les belles lettres, 41 959)),p. xxxii; Stockert, op. cit. (n. 29), p. 2 (based on Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 15 :1900)).In this stemma lost manuscripts have been put between parentheses (). Chelius, op. cit. (n. 9), pp. 127 and 136. 94

3. THE PRINTED EDITIONS54

As has already been mentioned, several testimonies make it highly probable that at the revival of learning at the beginning of the Italian Renaissance only the first eight comedies of Plautus were known.55 At the time of the Council of Basle (Iq.27) a manuscript was found by Nicolaus Treverensis (Nicholas of Trier) which, besides the first three comedies and the Captivi as far as 1. 503, contained also the last twelve comedies of Plautus. 56 Though this codex Ursinianus (D) of the eleventh century became more widely known only in the fifteenth century, it was to take over another century before the other two still existing manuscripts containing (also) the last twelve comedies were revealed: of these two (B and C), both once the property of Joachim Came- rarius, it was B which was particularly important because of its original readings.57 Partly on the basis of (a copy of) manuscript D, which had been redis- covered in 1428, with the last twelve comedies, Merula was in a position in 1472 to edit a printed edition of all - then and now - known Plautine comedies.58 As the texts of the comedies, being now available in print, were immediately used in education, they became strongly subject to emendations, interpretations and conjectures.59 For the first eight plays Merula may have used an earlier printed edition,6° but he certainly relied on manuscript D for the Amphitruo, Asinaria, Aulularia and Captivi (as far as 1. 503).61 After Merula's editio princeps of 1472 (I) no more drastically altered edition appeared until I5o6. This new recension (II) by Pylades Buccardus (Brescia I5o6), who made his revised version of the text through conjectures, but who

54 Important research into the printed editions of the comedies of Plautus was done by Friedrich Ritschl in his 'Ueber die Kritik des Plautus: eine bibliographische Untersuchung' (1835), in 1868 included with additions and corrections in his KleinePhilologische Schrften (see F. Ritschl, KleinePhilologische Schriften, vol. 2: 'Zu Plautus und Lateinischer Sprachkunde' (Leipzig 1868),p. i, n.*) The section there on the manuscripts on pp. 1-34,that on the printed editions on pp. 34-161. My section is to a large extent based on Ritschl's study (my references 'Ritschl, op. cit.' hereafter refer to this work). An almost complete catalogue of editions, not altogether correct or in some points differing from Ritschl's, was published by Schweiger (op. cit. (n. 5) ). Cf.the bibliography of Ebert, op. cit. (n. 5), cols. 441-52, and Ritschl's opinion of it, op. cit., p. 40. 55 Ritschl, op. cit., pp. 2-3; Schanz-Hosius, op. cit. (n. 8), p. 83. 56 Schanz-Hosius, op. cit. (n. 8), p. 83; O.P. Dittrich, Plautus und Terenzin Padagogikund Schulwesender deutschenHumanisten (Leipzig 1915),pp. 5-6. 57 Ritschl, op. cit., p. 4; cf. Schanz-Hosius, op. cit. (n. 8), pp. 84-5. This concerns the part of manuscript B with the last twelve plays. 58 Ritschl, op. cit., p. II; cf. pp. 16- 19and p. ign. Ritschl thinks that towards the end of the fifteenth century a great many copies of the Plautus manuscripts were in circulation (ibid., p. 33). 59 In the preface to the editioprinceps (1472) Merula points explicitly to the use of Plautus texts in teaching situations. (Cf. Ritschl, op. cit., pp. 22ff.) 60 The first eight comedies seem to have been printed in Venice already before 1472,without mention of place or date (Ritschl, op. cit., pp. 34-5; Sonnenburg, op. cit. (n. 17),col. 124). 61 Cf. Ritschl. op. cit., p. 39 and n.*. 95 may also have used a manuscript,62 remained - with a few exceptions - unchallenged until the edition of Camerarius (1552) .63 The attempt of Pylades to restore the Plautine text to lines of verse where these had been presented in the manuscripts without any breaks as if they were prose, has certainly contributed to this success .64 The year 1514 saw a new recension (III): the first Juntina, printed in Florence. This edition, the work of Nicolaus Angelius, is to a large extent a successor to the 1506 edition of Pylades. Whether or not various scenae suppositiciae are included in this edition depends wholly on what happens in the Pylades/Ugoletus edition (Parma 1510), whereas the actus division, which Pius had still noted in a commentary, was introduced into the text proper by Angelius .65 Some of the changes which Angelius made, must however, according to Ritschl, be founded on one or more excellent, but poorly utilised manuscripts. 66 The Aldina published in Venice in 1522 with a preface by Franciscus Asulanus makes up the fourth recension (IV). This edition is based on the Juntina of 1514. Its corrections consist not just of the correction of printing errors in that edition, but also of numerous correct and less correct conjectures. Until the publication of the Camerarius edition (1552) the Aldina was accepted as the standard text for all intervening editions .67 Whether or not the Cologne edition of Gibertus Longolius (1530) can be considered as a new recension (V) depends on the question whether corrections were actually made from a manuscript, as Longolius maintains they were. 68 It is known that Camerarius owned two of the three Palatine manuscripts, namely B (g-20) and C.b9His discovery of the Vetus codex (B) led to an edition published by Hervag in Basle (1 552)?"which can be considered a new recen-

62 Cf. Ritschl, op. cit., pp. 65ff. with Schweiger, op. cit. (n. 5), p. 760. 63 Ritschl, op. cit., p. 62. Pylades died while finishing the edition so that printing and publication were seen to by Johannes Britannicus. As regards the Aulularia,this edition has a commentary of Pylades until the second scene of the second act. 64 Ritschl, op. cit., pp. 72-3; Schweiger, op. cit. (n. 5), p. 760. 65 Ritschl, op. cit., pp. 82-6. 66 Which ones is not clear, the more so as, to quote Ritschl (op. cit., p. 86), Angelius made poor use of good manuscripts where Pylades made better use of worse ones. 67 Ritschl, op. cit., pp. 91-3. That Asulanus went to work with as little critical attention as his predecessors shows clearly from the fact that he retained many corrupt passages as well as passages interpolated by Pylades. 68 The edition edited by Gisbert (Gilbert or Gibert) Longolius was printed by Johannes Gymnicus in Cologne. The manuscript said to have been used for it is very likely to have been one copied (in Rome) from the CodexUr.sinianus (D) (Ritschl, op. cit., pp. 16-18.According to Ritschl (ibid., p. 95), it has however had no effect on the text. 69 Cf. Schanz-Hosius, op. cit. (n. 8), pp. 84-5; and Ritschl, op. cit., p. 100, n*. 70 For the dating see: Schweiger, op. cit. (n. 5), p. 762. For a description of the discovery and the use made of the manuscript: Ritschl, op. cit., pp. 100-3 and n. 53. 96 sion (VI) because, compared with previous editions, it has diverging and better readings in various places. A considerable number of readings in this edition is inferior, especially those which rely on earlier editions (particularly the Aldina) or on the editor's own conjectures.7' According to Ritschl, Camerarius primarily lacked sufficient knowledge of Plautine prosody and metrics, and shortage of time prevented the German humanist from analy- sing the metrical structure of the lines and he was therefore unable fully to exploit the new manuscript Apparently Camerarius hardly used the Codex Decurtatus to which he refers as 'alter liber', if at all.73 The main complaint however which Ritschl has against Camerarius's proceedings, is that, after having announced that he would indicate divergencies from the manuscripts regarding the textual tradition, in fact he does so in a very few cases only Because of some additions to the text as Camerarius had reproduced it with the help of early manuscripts, the edition of Johannes Sambucus (Plantin, Antwerp i566) constitutes the seventh recension (VII). According to Ritschl, the text itself has not been altered compared to Camerarius, but from a vetus codex and very early manuscripts Sambucus has added eighty-six partly incomplete lines of verse.75 In all probability this vetus codex is the same as the one to which Sambucus refers in his prefatory letter to Plantin, probably referring to a copy of I443 of manuscript D once owned by Pontano.76 Apart from these added lines of verse, the difference with the Camerarius edition consists in variant readings placed in the margin. These variant readings derive in part from his best manuscript - with the marginal note 'S.v.c.' (i.e. 'Sic(?) vetus codex'). Sambucus also used a copy of three

71 See Ritschl, op. cit., pp. io8-9, where the first scene of the Bacchide.sis minutely examined for the origin of its emendations. 72 Ritschl, op. cit., pp. 107-8, IIOfp.(cf. pp. 105-6 and n. 55); cf. S. Prete, 'Camerarius on Plautus', in: Joachim Camerarius(r5oo-r574). Beiträgezur Geschichtedes Humanismusim Zeitalterder Reformation(München Ig78), pp. 223-30, esp. pp. 223-4. 73 It is after all highly probable that it was this manuscript C which Camerarius, and after him Gruter and Taubmann, describe as 'alter liber' and which received the name 'Decurtatus', later 'Decurtatus Parei', only from Pareus (preface of the second and third editions (1619and 1623);for these quotations see: Ritschl, op. cit., pp. 104-5and n. 54. 74 Ritschl, op. cit., pp. IIO-II. 75 See Ritschl, op. cit., pp. 114-15,where the 'plus quam CC versibus' of Sambucus have been counted and duly modified. 76 See Ritschl, op. cit., p. II4: 'Mitto ... observationes quasdam et varias in Plautum de chirographis vetustissimis et praecipue meo illo quo lovianus Pontanus est usus, collectas Scrip- turas ...'. Cf. Ritschl's arguments on pp. 26-30 and n. 17 for considering this 1443manuscript at all. This copy (now in the Vatican with the shelf-mark Barber. Lat. 146)has at one time been in the possession of Pontanus, but is not in his hand (Sabbadini, op. cit. (n. 39), pp. 350-2; Questa, op. cit. (n. 39), Pp. v, 48ff.). 97 manuscripts of the first eight comedies in the possession of Carolus Langius.77 An important new recension (VIII) came with the edition which Joannes Macaeus in Paris published in 1576 under the name of Lambinus. Lambinus died while this edition was still in preparation. According to the preface by Jacob Helias, Lambinus's commentary (as far as the Mercator) was published by Helias with additions and elaborations. According to Ritschl, only through the intervention of Helias did the text (at least in part) assume its shape by means of the readings which Lambinus had recommended in his commentary,?8 As a matter of fact, we are dealing here with the text as printed in the edition of Camerarius or Sambucus, with very few changes due to conjectures. If we are to believe Helias, Lambinus must have had 'vetusti libri' (early manuscripts) at his disposal: 'how much trouble he must have taken in tracking down old manuscripts from here, there and every- where and comparing them. There is a great dearth of early manuscripts, especially good ones'.79 Helias's trustworthiness in this respect has however been questioned, among others, by Acidalius, Dousa and Taubmann Nevertheless it looks as if Lambinus did use two manuscripts which he defines in an annotation to Mercator 1.1.104 as 'duobus codicibus manu-

77 Ritschl, op. cit., pp. 115- 16.Wherever Sambucus adopted variants from Langius he marked them with an 'L'. Passages where the readings of Sambucus do not agree with those of Langius are listed at the end of the edition. In addition there are excerpts relating to Plautinian criticism taken from the observations of Camerarius, from the Adversariaof Turnebus and from the Observationesof Hadrianus Junius on the Amphitruo,Asinaria, Aulularia and Miles(Ritschl, op. cit., p. I I6). 78 Ritschl, op. cit., pp. 117-18.By this Ritschl explains the origin of small differences regarding the relationship between text and notes and regarding this edition on the one hand and the various later Lambinus editions until that of 1622 on the other hand. According to the preface, Helias seems to have had some difficulty in decyphering the annotations of Lambinus ('hi commentarii manu Lambini ita scripti erant, ut non codex, sed adversaria viderentur esse; multas lacunas habebant ... plurima adumbrata, quae ab operis legi non poterant, expressimus ...'). This view is confirmed by W.M. Lindsay (op. cit. (n. 18:1898),p. 13,n. I) who says of the handwriting of Lambinus: 'more scratchy, illegible writing could hardly be found'. 79 '... quantum enim subierit laboris in conquirendis undique comparandisque vetustis libris, quorum magna est penuria, bonorum praesertim ...' Ritschl, op. cit., p. IIB, n. 65; and Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 18: 1898),p. 13.The term 'vetusti libri' can refer to manuscripts, but also to collations of manuscripts in the margin of printed editions or elsewhere. In connection with Aul.234 Lambinus mentions eight 'libri', with Cas. q.I4 he mentions seven (Lindsay, ibid., p. 14, n. i). 80 Their reproach that Lambinus should have aped Camerarius is however based on only one passage in the Rudenswhere Lambinus speaks of 'diserte nostri libri veteres' while Camerarius already had the same reading. Gruter's suspicion - 'Lambinum hominibus fucum facere cum MSS. suis' - speaks for itself (on this: Ritschl, op. cit., pp. 118-19). JJ.Scaliger was not enthusias- tic either about the commentary of Lambinus and in a letter of 1577he encouraged Lipsius to issue a new edition: 'Plautum Lambini si vidisti, non admiraris, certe scio. Est enim germanus plane illius Horatii Lambiniani, qui commentariorum mole laborat ... Tu, interea dum ego hic neque mihi neque alteri prosum, fac felicius, quam me, in otium te dedisse putemus ...' (J J. Scaliger, Epistolaeomnes quae reperiri potuerunt,nunc firimum collectae ac editae... (Leiden 1627;U.L. Amsterdam 972 F I), p. 87). 98 scriptis, Clericano et Pithaeano'. Of these two, the Clericanus manuscript is the inferior one and it could have come, as Ritschl thinks, from the same series as the inferior manuscript known to Sambucus.8' The other manuscript used by Lambinus comes from a better family and provides convincing readings where blanks have been left in the manuscripts of Camerarius and where readings are wanting in the Codex Decurtatus. Judging from the great similarity between these readings and the 'schedae vetustissimae' of Adrianus Turnebus, Ritschl was of the opinion that the fragmentary manuscript to which Turnebus refers in his Adversaria (XIX. 12) as 'aliquid membranae pervetustae' must have come into the hands of Lambinus between the year of Turnebus's death (1565) and 1576; Lambinus must have used it in these passages.82 Lambinus himself had already alluded to this similarity where he said - for instance on two passages in the Pseudolus - that maybe Turnebus had used the same 'libri' as he had.83 But Lindsay thinks it more likely that Lambinus made use, not of this manuscript, but of marginalia (based on this manuscript).84 That it was a less complete copy than what can be found in the way of marginalia by Duarenus in the Gryphius edition, is evident from various passages in Lambinus which give fuller, less full or divergent readings.85 It is not very clear what in this edition is due to Lipsius. The title mentions that 'reflections on and emendations of many Plautus passages' were taken 'from the commentary on earlier readings by Justus Lipsius'.86 During his journey in Italy (from 1565 to 1572) Lipsius had found three Plautus manuscripts in the Vatican Library from which he afterwards quoted a number of readings in his Antiquae lectiones. It is not clear which three manuscripts are meant. According to Ritschl, where Lipsius mentions the 'optimus', he speaks of D (Vat. Lat. 3870). The copy named G of (a copyist of) Poggio (Vat. Lat. 1629) is eligible for the second place. Finally, the third manuscript is said to be yet another copy of the Codex Ursinianus (D).S7 The edition by Janus Dousa the younger of 1589 is the first in a series of editions representing the 'recensio Dousica', as the publisher Raphelengius described it in the title. Often Janus Dousa the elder's work, Centurionatus sive

81 Ritschl, op. cit., pp. IIg-20. 82 Ritschl, op. cit., pp. i 20-4. 83 See Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 18:1898),p. 15. 84 But in that case these Marginaliado not come from the yq.o Gryphius edition. See Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 18:1898),pp. 15-16and p. 16, n. i. 85 Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 18:1898),p. 16. Lindsay concludes: 'On the whole the balance of probability inclines to show that Lambin had at least one transcript of Turnebe's marginalia, which was independent of the Oxford Gryphius'. 86 Cf. Schweiger, op. cit. (n. 5), p. 762: '... et ex commentario antiquarum lectionum Justi Lipsii multorum Plauti locorum illustrationes et emendationes'. 87 Ritschl, op. cit., pp. I4fll.,esp. n.* on p. 20. Cf. Questa, op. cit. (n. 39), for the two Vatican manuscripts. 99

Plautinarum Explanationum libri IV, edited by Janus Dousa the younger in 1587, has been added to the various editions of this recension (IX) as a supplement. Dousa mentions marginalia from earlier and recent editions - often conjectures by the younger as well as the elder Dousa -, he includes references to the latter's Centurionatus and uses his own Animadversiones as appendix. Here and there corrections by Dousa and others, among them improvements in punctuation, have been made in the text The two most important manuscripts (B (9-20) and C), which had been in the possession of Camerarius, probably ended up after his death (i574) being acquired through his son by Frederick IV for the Electoral library in Heidelberg in 1602. In any event, Janus Gruter must have consulted manuscript B (the Codex Vetus) between 1591 and 1595. He knew the value of the manuscripts and it is therefore highly probable that it was at his instigation that the library, of which he had been the librarian since 1602, bought them.89 The research which Gruter did in the following years with the help of the manuscripts did not lead directly to an edition of his own. What did happen was that his excerpts stimulated Pareus and Taubmann. In so far as these manuscripts are concerned, both (Pareus at least in his first edition) were completely dependent on Gruter's references. Only in 1621, with the third Taubmann edition, does Gruter enter upon the scene as editor.9° The tenth recension comes about with the first Taubmann edition, published by Zacharias Schurerus (Wittenberg 1605). This edition was not primarily intended as textual criticism, but aimed above all at clarification of the text. Almost thirty years after the elucidations in the edition of Lambinus the intention there proclaimed, i.e. to draw the quintessence from the very many passages in need of explanation and to collect them in an orderly and purposeful manner, was fulfilled by Taubmann, after Dousa and Ulricus Pistoris had done no more than once again to express the same intention.9' Taubmann, as mentioned before, made - limited - use of Gruter's research,92 which consisted in a comparison between the texts in the manuscripts of Camerarius as well as six Palatine copies (with the Aulularia in all of

88 Ritschl, op. cit., pp. 124-5.Ritschl's words reveal that he did not really look on this Dousa edition as a new recension. He therefore finds Taubmann's praise of it undeserved: Taubmann had praised Dousa's edition as the only good thing with regard to Plautus to have been produced between Camerarius (1552)and 1612(ibid., p. 124). 89 Ritschl, op. cit., pp. 125-6. Cf. n. 70 on pp. 126-7. go Ritschl, op. cit., pp. 126-8. Seeing that the prefaces of the Taubmann and Pareus editions make no mention anywhere of such a contribution, it seems unlikely that there had been a Gruter edition as early as 1592, as is stated, interalia, by Fabricius (op. cit. (n. 5), p. 19). gi Ritschl, op. cit., pp. 129fll.Pistoris passed his collection of notes on Plautus to Taubmann although the latter refers specifically to 'nova inventa' (see Ritschl, op. cit., p. 129). 92 Le. J. Gruterus, Notaeet excerptaPalatina, quaeille flagitiomeo quasi coactus subito calore effuderat (see Ritschl, op. cit., p. 130). The manuscripts compared, a total of nine, were all in the Heidelberg library. 100 them) and a manuscript93 with excerpts from (all twenty) Plautine comedies. Everything Taubmann quotes from these manuscripts he quotes through Gruter, without mentioning his name. True, he names Rittershusius whose comparison between B (g-20) and C he had at his disposal. While the text of this Taubmann edition is mainly that of the Camerarius/Dousa recension (as Taubmann himself confesses in his preface (i 605, p. vii)), he has failed to restore the lines which Camerarius omitted through carelessness, but which Gruter and (at times) Rittershusius did provide.94 Contrary to Taubmann's edition, the first edition by Pareus of 1610 (published by J. Rhodius at Frankfurt) had textual criticism as its main aim. In the preface to this edition, which constitutes the eleventh recension, Pareus distances himself from Taubmann in respect of the latter's textual construction by saying that he would have expected better, given all the means available to him in the commentary. But whereas Taubmann's princi- pal aim had been to compile excerpts for the purpose of explaining the text, Pareus desired to serve Plautine criticism in the year i6io by sifting through all the scholarly emendations and use the most important of them to restore the text. Although he - arbitrarily - adopted more good readings from the manuscripts of Camerarius than Taubmann had done, Pareus's text is spoiled to a high degree because he placed every conjecture and every reading of every manuscript or edition on the same level.95 The reader must gain the impression from the preface that Pareus had himself studied the manuscripts used by Camerarius and many others as well. In the preface of the 1621 Gruter/Taubmann edition Pareus is however taken to task as far as the use of manuscripts is concerned for having touched the manuscripts he mentions 'only once with his eye, never with his finger and certainly never with his whole hand'.96 According to Ritschl, this was a fair reproach since Pareus, in place of manuscripts B (g-20), C and the seven Palatine manuscripts, had only used Gruter's excerpts.97 As far as the manuscripts in the Heidelberg Library are concerned, Pareus made use only of the annotations of Melchior Goldastus.98

93 On this manuscript: Ritschl, op. cit., pp. 130-1and n. 73. For these nine manuscripts see: Schweiger, op. cit. (n. 5), p. 764 under the 1610 Pareus edition. 94 Ritschl, op. cit., pp. 130-2. 95 Ritschl, op. cit., p. 133. 96 '... semel tantum uno oculo tetigerat, numquam digito certe numquam manu'. Ritschl, op. cit., p. 135. 97 This is in fact what Pareus - in reaction to Gruter's preface - himself admits in his Proaocatioad senatumcrit. (pp. 20fll.):'Hos MSS. Camerario-Palatinos (hoc est, Variantium lectionum Excerpta, a Grutero ad oram sui libri descripta et mihi communicata) redintegrato meo labore accurate inspexi etc. Ipsis MSStorum apographis me tum usum, numquam affirmavi' (quoted by Ritschl, op. cit., p. 135, n. 77). 98 Ritschl, op. cit., pp. 135-7.Most of the manuscripts mentioned by Pareus contain only the first eight comedies. 101

Out of rivalry with Pareus, Taubmann had a second edition published in 1612 which even in its title and preface differed greatly from the first edition of 1605. This edition, published once more by Zacharias Schurerus at Wittenberg, has to be counted as the twelfth recension. Realising that an explanatory commentary needed a renewed text and that the Camerarius manuscripts could be useful to him in this, Taubmann now followed the authority of these manuscripts unless he had good reason for not doing so. Although the text has hereby gained in accurate readings, the whole suffers from a lack of relevant knowledge of the manuscripts and from using Gruter's excerpts instead of the manuscripts themselves.99 In consequence, in 1620 Gruter complained that his excerpts were frequently misunderstood by both Taubmann and Pareus.101, According to his own words, Taubmann reproduced Gruter's variants completely concerning the manuscripts of Camerarius, but only to a limited extent with regard to the (seven) other Heidelberg manuscripts.'°' Pareus's second edition (and thus the thirteenth recension) was published by the heirs of Jac. Fisscher in 161g.102 Then in 1621the above-mentioned third Taubmann edition was published (by Schurerus in Wittenberg), edited by Janus Gruter and representing the fourteenth recension. These last two recensions will however not be discussed here; editions later than 1617 can no longer contribute to the aim envisaged here: a description of the editions which might have been used in the creation of the Warenar. To sum up, the following recensions can be listed:

I Merula (i472) II Pylades (i5o6) ' III Juntina (N. Angelius) (i5r4) IV Aldina (Fr. Asulanus) (1522) V Aldina (Gisb. Longolius) (1530) VI Camerarius (1552) VII Sambucus (1566) VIII Lambinus (1576) IX Dousa (1589) X Taubmann I (1605) XI Pareus (16io) XII Taubmann II (1612)

99 See Ritschl, op. cit., pp. 137-9. ioo Ritschl (op. cit., pp. r38ff; cf. n. 85) leaves unclear whether this observation is a correct one or whether it was meant to lend extra value to the 1621Taubmann edition by Gruter. 101 See Ritschl's qualification of 'complete', op. cit., p. 139. io2 See Schweiger, op. cit. (n. 5), p. 765. 102

4. COMPARISONWITH THE WARENAR

The arrangement by recensions as laid down in section 3 allows this investigation to be carried out with a manageable number of editions. For practical reasons concerning the availability of editions it was in a number of instances not the first edition within a recension which has been consulted, but a later one of which on the basis of Ritschl's study (1868) it could be assumed that the text did not differ, or did so only marginally, from the first edition in the recension. The editions consulted per recension and copy are:

I M. Accius Plautus. Viginti comoediae magna ex parte iterum emendatae per G. (Merulam) Alexandrinum. Treviso 1482 (U.L. Leiden 1367 C I). II (M. Accius Plautus). Comoediae viginti plautinae ex quibus Pylades Buccardus duodeviginti solerti diligentia correxit ... Brescia 1506 (U.L. Leiden 617 A 4). III M. Accius Plautus. Comoediae viginti nuper recognitae et acri judicio Nicolai Angelii diligentissime excussae (ed. Juntina/Angelius). Florence 1514 (U.L. Leiden 682 D 16). IV (M. Accius Plautus). Ex Plauti comoediis XX quarum carmina magna ex parte in mensum suum restituta sunt ... (ed. Aldina/Asulana). Venice 1522 (U.L. Leiden 571 F 27). V M. Accius Plautus. Comoediae XX (ed. Gryphius). Lyon 1537 (U.L. Amster- dam 971 E 7). VI M. Accius Plautus. Comoediae XX diligente cura, & singulari studio Ioachimi Camerarii ... editae. Basle 1558 (U.L. Leiden 757 E 5). VII M. Accius Plautus. Comoediae XX olim a Joach. Camerario emendatae nunc vero plus quam CC versibus ... restitutae opera et diligentia J. Sambuci. Antwerp 1566 (U.L. Amsterdam 1233 H 47). VIII M. Accius Plautus ex fide, atque auctoritate complurium librorum manuscriptorum opera Dionys. Lambini emendatus ... Paris 1577 (U.L. Amsterdam 1721 B 13). IX M. Accius Plautus. Latinae comoediae facile principis fabulae superstites XX. Ex recens. Dousica. Leiden 1589 (U.L. Leiden 755 G 18). X M. Accius Plautus. Lat. Comoediae facile principis Fabulae superstites ... (ed. Taubmann). [Wittenberg] 1605 (U.L. Amsterdam 763 C 15). XI M. Accius Plautus. Comoediae XX superstites. J. Ph. Pareus restituit et notis perpetuis illustravit ... Frankfurt 1610 (Bibl. Nat. Paris Yc. 4705).103 XII M. Accius Plautus. Comoediae XX superstites nunc denuo post omnium editiones ad fidem meliorum Codd. & imprimis vetustiss. Mss. Camerarij ... illustratae (ed. Taubmann). [Wittenberg] 1612 (U.L. Amsterdam 1207 J 4).

103 I could not find a copy of this recension in any Dutch or Belgian library. Apart from the copy in Paris there is one also in the British Library in London. 103

Research now proceeded as follows. First of all, with the help of the critical apparatus of variants in one Aulularia edition (Ed. G. Goetz; Leipzig, Teub- ner, 1881) as large a number as possible of variants from manuscripts and/ or early editions - Goetz gives information on these only - had to be assem- bled. A first selection, in which special attention was paid to variants for more or less literally translated passages or lines of verse of the Aulularia which in the various recensions could cause textual differences, produced nearly sixty passages. Of these, almost half (28) looked promising with a view to this investigation. 104 After very thoroughly comparing the Latin and the Dutch of the remainder and estimating the influence which the various readings of the Latin might have had on the adaptation, the rest proved less suitable or useless. Moreover, on top of the twenty-eight examples to be examined, the cooks' scene (Aul. 28o-34g) was selected as a potentially distinctive passage, and this also because Leendertz already marked this scene as such.'°5 In a comparison of the twelve recensions half of the twenty- eight potential cases turned out to reveal no differences and were therefore eliminated: here all the recensions showed none or at best a (minimal) divergence of another sort than the manuscript variants would lead one to expect.'°6 Four other passages did provide variants, but of a kind which did not allow any conclusions on their relation to the Warenar to be drawn. 107 The remaining eleven variants will be discussed below. For each example I shall point out its usefulness and mention the recension(s) for which a positive indication can possibly be drawn from is. 108 i. Aul. 85 / War. 132 I, III-V: 'Mirum quin tua nunc me caus(s)a faciat Iup(p)iter / Philip- pum regem'.

104 For the sake of completeness I here list all 28 passages which could qualify for this comparison. Some of them will be discussed later: Aul. 15 - War. 24b; Aul. 2t [`nunc'] - War. 25; Aul. 46/7 [punctuation] - War.82/5; Aul. 85 - War. 132;Aul. gi - War. 138;Aul. io2b - War. 155; Aul. to4b - [not in War.];Aul. io6b - (War. i6i); Aul.255 - War.344; Aul.270 ['pure'] - War. 372; Aul. 285-go [which characters?] - War. c. 405; Aul. 349-62 [words to Congrio] - War.524-40; Aul. 39ob - War. 566b; Aul. 4I I /2 - (War. 581);Aul. 417C - War. 585; Aul. 423b - [not in War. (593)] ; Aul. 426 - War. 596; Aul. 434/5 [which characters?] - not in War.; Aul. 446 ['pipulo'] - (War. 618); Aul. 454/5 -- War. 630; Aul. 476/7 - War. 66g; Aul. 547 - War. 76gb; Aul. 713 [characters listed above scene] - War. 104.5;Aul. 717-20 [sequence of lines] - War. 1058/62 ;Aul. 717 - War. 1058 Aul.; 731b - War. I092C;Aul. 735b - War. iogg; Aul. 772b-4 - War. 115ga. 105 See supra my n. 4. 106 The lines for which the recensions give identical readings are: Aul. 15, 21, lo4b, 270, 285-go, 4c7c, 423b, 434-5, 446, 476-7, 713, 717-20,717, 772b-4. 107 These are Aul. 46-7, i02b, 255 and 39ob. 108 The recensions are designated by the numbers I-XII (Merula 1482 - Taubmann i6i2), the numbering of the Aulularialines conforms to: T. Maccius Plautus, Aulularia,ed. G. Goetz (Leipzig, Teubner, 1881), while the Latin texts are quoted as far as possible according to the relevant recension(s). 104

VI-XII: 'Mirum quin tua me caus(s)a faciat Iup(p)iter / Philippum regem'. II: 'Mirum quin tua nunc causa faciat iuppiter / Philippum regem'. [trsl. : 'It's truly also a wonder that Jupiter hasn't for your sake made me king Philip (now)'] War. 132: 'Toch onse lieven Heer mochtmen om jouwent wil wel Paus van Romen maecken'. ['mochtmen' = 'mocht me']. [trsl.: 'But our dear Lord might for your sake make me Pope of From the presence or absence of 'nunc' I cannot draw any conclusion, but I can from the absence of 'me' in II which can only lead to a corrupt interpretation or translation (e.g. 'it's truly also a wonder that Jupiter hasn't for your sake now made Philip king'). Conclusion: slight negative indication for II.

2. Aul. 91 / War. 138/9 The early recensions (I-V) assign line gi to Staphyla; the later ones (VI-XII) give the line to Euclio (in a somewhat altered form). I-V: 'Staph. Quid si quispiam ignem quaerit? Eucl. Exstingui volo'. [trsl.: 'Staphyla. What if somebody were to ask for fire? Eucl. I want it extinguished']. VI-XII: ('Eucl.) Quod quispiam ignem quaerat, exstingui volo'. [trsl.: '(Euclio.) 'In case somebody were to ask for fire I want it extinguished'? . War. i38-g: 'Reym. En offer een buerwijf quam een kooltje vier'? / Warnar. Dooftme al 't vuyr uyt ...' [trsl.: 'Reym. And supposing a neighbour's wife were to come for a bit of coal fire? / Warnar. Let me have all the fire extinguished ...'] , That Hooft assigns War. 138 to Reym whilst the model has this line (Aul. gi) spoken by Euclio appears to me improbable, firstly because the whole passage is quite literally translated from the Latin,I°9 and secondly because nowhere else in the Warenar - except in the cooks' scene - text is given to a different character from the one corresponding to it in the Aulularia.110 All in all it looks as if an edition is followed in which this line is put into the mouth

iog Thus Aul. 85-6 corresponds roughly to War. 132-3;Aul. 87 to War. 134 Aul.; 88 to War. 135; Aul. 89 to War. i3q.;Aul. 89-90 to War. 136-7;Aul. 91 to War. 138;Aul. 91-2 to War. 139and Aul. 93 to War. 140. 110Just supposing this was (as F.L.W.M. Buisman-De Savornin Lohman suggests in 'Plautus' Aulularia bij Hooft en bij Moliere', in: Hermeneus,10 (1937-8),pp. 2-io, esp. pp. 7-8) a transposition for the sake of enlivening the dialogue, this would be the only place in the Warenarwhere this is done in such a zvay. 105 of Staphyla. Admittedly, X and XII give this line to Euclio, but they do mention in their commentary that Meursius approved of the reading of the vellum manuscript of Langius which assigned Aul. gi to Staphyla. Here the version in the older editions is quoted. "' Conclusion: a positive indication for I-V, a negative one for VI-XII. X and XII remain possible provided the commentary was consulted.

3. Aul. io6 / War. 161 I-V, XI, XII: 'Nimis hercle invitus abeo, sed quid agam scio'. [trsl.: 'I go very unwillingly, but I know what I must do']. VI-X: 'Nimis hercle invitus abeo, si quid agam, scio'. [trsl.: 'I go very unwillingly if I know what I'm doing']. War. 161: 'Ick schey wel nood' van hier, maer ick moet nae 't Princes Hof . [trsl.: 'I leave most unwillingly, but I must go to the "Princes Hof ' 'J . Although the expression 'maer ick moet nae 't Princes Hof' seems to be a little closer to the recensions with 'sed', neither variant corresponds wholly to the meaning of the Dutch. 'Sed quid agam scio' ['but I know what I must do'] is followed in Aul. 107 by the explanation: 'for the chairman of our council has made it known that he will carry out a distribution of money'. In the readings giving 'si' Aul. 107 functions, not as an explanation, but as new information. For the variant with 'si quid agam scio' must, also taking into account the explanation given by Lambinus,"2 mean roughly the following: `if I know what I'm doing, i.e. if I act perfectly rationally, then I leave home very unwillingly'. The tenor of this interpretation is surely quite different from that in the corresponding Warenar-line. The Taubmann editions (1605 with 'si', 1612 with 'sed') offer in their commentary - in 1605 after an interpretation by Camerarius"3 - the explanation of Dousa (in which the

III The Taubmann editions (1605, p. 145 as well as the editions of 1612 and 1621 (Gruter/ Taubmann)) say in the commentary under Quodquisp.: 'Sic optimus ille noster codex: nam quod extat in reliquis, item vetuste cusis, paraphrasis est: Grut.V.N. Mil. 2: 2. Meursius tamen potius probat Lang. membranae lectionem: 'Sta. Quidsi quispiamignem quaerit? Eu. Exstinguivolo' ...' 112 Lambinus (Ed. Paris 1577,p. 152)explains the line as follows: 'id est, si quidem, quid agam abeundo domo, scio. quasi dicat, quippe qui scio, me, abeundo domo, aurum relinquere tollen- dum furibus, vel sic, si modo, quid agam, scio: proinde ac si dicat, cum praesertim nesciam, quid mihi haec domo abitio profutura sit' [trsl. 'that is to say, "if at least I know what I'm doing by leaving home". He says as it were: "but since I know that by leaving home I leave the gold behind to be grabbed by thieves"; or thus: "if only I know what I'm doing": just as if he were saying: 'since above all I don't know what good it will do me to leave home']. I 13 In explaining 'si quod agam scio', Taubmann (ed. Wittenberg 1605, p. 146) begins his commentary on this line with the comment of Camerarius: 'Dubitatio senis: qui negat se abiturum domo, si sciat quid factu sit optimum. Nunc in hoc haesitat, quia metuit, ne absentii à divisione sui, in suspiciones aliquas incurrat: Camerarius...' [trsl. :'Quandary of the old man who refuses to leave home, even if he knows what would be best to do. Now he is hesitating because he fears that his absence at the (money) distribution will arouse some suspicion. Camerarius']. 106 variant with 'sed' is mentioned), which points straight to the distribution of money. 114 Conclusion: A slight preference for recensions I-V, XI and XII. This also holds for X, provided the commentary was consulted. This consultation might have been desirable since the meaning of this line with si is not very clear (cf. Lambinus' explanation).

4. The cooks' scene (Aul. 280-349 / War. 399-523) The problem here is mainly the distribution of the text among various characters. The servant Lecker is an imitation of the slave Strobilus. Whether Teeus was inspired by Congrio and Casper by Anthrax, or exactly vice versa, remains uncertain. To compare this scene only those lines have been chosen which contain roughly the same information in model and imitation.

Aul. 288b-ga I-XII: Strobilus War. 405: Lecker Aul. 28gb I-V: Congrio; VI-XII: Coc(us)"5 War. 406-7: Casper Aul. 290-2 I-XII: Strobilus War. 408-14: Lecker Aul. 294b-5 I-V: Anthrax; VI-XII: Coc(us) War. 442-3: Casper Aul. 2g6a I-XII: Strobilus War. 444a: Lecker Aul. 297 I-XII: Strobilus War. 446: Teeus"s

114 Taubmann (edn. Wittenberg 1605),p. 146:'ita &J. Guliel. V. (eteres)N.(otae) infra act. 3:6. At depravata est, inquitDuza, Camerarii & Lambini editio. Retinenda enim vetus lectio: - sedquid agamscio. Ait, invitissimum se domo egredi; ob nimiam curam scilicet pro Aula illa sua ...' [trsl.: 'So also [as Camerarius] the old annotations of J. Guilielmus under act 3.6. But the edition of Camerarius and Lambinus is disfigured, says Douza. [i.e. in the Centurionatus,sive Plautinarum explanationumlibri Ih (Leiden 1587)(UL Amsterdam 969 C 24), p. 89]. The old reading 'sed quid agam scio' is actually the one to be adopted. He [Euclio] says that he has left home much against his will, i.e. because of too much worry about that pot of his ...' (In square brackets my own explanations and additions). After this Taubmann quotes the paraphrase Dousa had given of the reading with 'sed quid agam scio': '(Ait) caeterum scire se quid agat, nequi temerarium aut de nihilo esse, quod in publicum subinde prodiens conspiciatur ...' [trsl.: '[he says] that he [Euclio] on his part knows what he is doing and that the fact that he is being observed as he suddenly appears in public, is neither fortuitous nor without reason [there follows as the reason the distribution of the money]']. In the 1612edition (p. 148)Taubmann prefers 'Sedquid Ag. Scio.Ita e v(etere). cod(ice). Grut. & Douza.' Janus Gruter's choice of 'sed quid' was already mentioned by Taubmann in 1605(p. 146):'Etjam Grut. leg. sedquid: & quidem ex V.C. in quo set' - according to the critical apparatus in the edition of G. Goetz (op. cit. (n. io8) and Stockert (op. cit. (n. 29)) this 'vetus codex' must be (based on) J. 115 The confusion in this scene begins already with some editors interpreting a predecessor's abbreviation for 'Congrio', namely 'Co.', as if it stood for 'Cocus' (cook) and reproduce it as 'Coc.' The latter can then indicate either Anthrax or Congrio, both of them cooks. In this scene in the editions of Camerarius (1558, 1566),Dousa (1589),Lambinus (1577,also the Lambinus edition Geneva 1605 (U.L. Amsterdam, copy Neolatin Inst.: 272 D 13)) and Taubmann (1605, 1612),in place of Anthrax or Congrio it is always coc.which is indicated right until I. 322a ('Con.') and 323b ('An.'). ic6 Surprisingly, War. 445-9 are given to Teeus although the content of these lines fits in well with what Lecker says elsewhere in this scene. At the same time it is the only passage in which Teeus lets it be known that he is well aware of what the miser is up to. The other anecdotes are always told by Lecker. 107

Aul. 299-301 I-XII: Strobilus War. 447b-9: Teeus Aul. 302 I-XII: Strobilus War. 453-4a: Lecker Aul. 303b I-XII: Strobilus War. 454b-5: Lecker Aul. 304-5 I-V: Anthrax; VI-XII: Cocus War. 456: Teeus Aul. 312-13 I-XII: Strobilus War. 482: Lecker Aul. 314 I-V: Anthrax; VI-XII: Cocus War. 483: Casper Aul. 316-20 I-XII: Strobilus War. 484-93: Lecker

The fact that Aul. 2g7 and 2gg-301 , in which all recensions have Strobilus as the speaker, are in the Warenar given to Teeus and not to Lecker, already allows the conclusion that in this scene Hooft acted very freely in assigning the text to the characters. Conclusion: I, like Leendertz, have been unable to find an edition with which the Warenar is in total agreement.117

5. Aul. 349-62 / War. 524-40 In which edition is this scene given to a cook? In I-XI no cook speaks at all: the only characters named above the scene are Strobilus and Staphyla. XII assigns lines 357b, 358b and 362a to 'Co.'. Above the scene here are: 'Strobilus, Staphyla, Coci'. In the corresponding act in the Warenar (War. 524ff ) only Lecker and Reym appear. Moreover, only the names of these two are indicated as characters above this scene. In the commentary of XII Taubmann defends the appearance of the cook here on the grounds that questions and remarks about planks and wood (as fuel) are the cooks' business and not the slave Strobilus's. "8 If Hooft had used this model, even if he had consulted the commentary, nothing would have prevented him from letting Teeus or Casper appear in War. 52g?' and 53i-2a, the more so as the Aulularia has been quite literally followed in this scene. After all, both are physically present in this scene as is evident from War. 525 ('dit volck', 'these chaps') and 533-4, ('Hier is Hofmeester, Kock en Kocx knecht, die moghen niet toeven. / Gaet in maets ...', 'Here are Steward, Cook and Cook's Boy who may not wait. Go in, chums'). Conclusion: a negative indication for XII.

117 Leendertz, op. cit. (n. 4), p. vii, n.*. 118 Taubmann's edition of I6I2, p. t6q (idem: Taubmann edn. 1621,p. 195)observes on the line Co suntasseres? 'Ita personasingeniosissime restituit Pistoris. Et vidit etiam Acidalius vulgatum minus convenire. Lambini hallucinationes, & Douzae argutias omittamus. Nam unde hic sciat, ex coqui mercede partem vendicasse Strobilum? Omnino melius Coquo tribuuntur illa, sunt asseres? & sunt ig. ligna.plane ex disciplina coquorum, qui undiquaque alimenta suo igni corripiunt' [trsl.: 'Thus Pistoris has very cleverly restored the characters. And Acidalius also recognised that the general text [in the hitherto published editions] is less apt. Let us forget the waffling of Lambinus and the subtleties of Douza altogether. For how can one deduce here that Strobilus laid claim to a part of the cooks' wages? These words can in all respects better be given to a cook, the 'sunt asseres?' and 'sunt igitur ligna' clearly [have their origin in] the behaviour of the cooks who are collecting wood for their fire from all over the place']. 108

6. Aul. 4II-14 / War. 578-81 In I-XI the sequence of lines in this passage is: 413, 414, 411, 4I2."9 [413] 'Attat perii hercle ego miser. aperitur bacchanal. adest: [414] Sequitur. scio quam rem geram: hoc ipsus magister me docuit. [4i i] Neque ligna ego usquam gentium praeberi vidi pulcrius: [412] Itaque omnis exegit foras, me atque hos onustos fustibus'. [trsl.: '413 Blast! Heavens above, poor blighter that I am, I've had it! He is opening his bacchanals, he comes, [414] he's after me. I know what I must do: my master himself has taught me. [4.II] But never-ever have I seen wood handed out more generously! [412] And so he threw everyone out, me and them, loaded with cudgel blows'] . In XII lines 413-14 follow on 411-12. Taubmann herein adopted an emenda- tion of Acidalius, as he states in his commentary.'2° War. 578-81: [578] 'Ten bate niet of ick riep, hou op, ick ben de kock, [579] Ick seg hy heeft ien quae dronckenschap, indien hy buys was, [580] Somma 'tgaet redelijck toe, nae datter gien hout in huys was, [581] Hy heeft ons an hout gheholpen iens voor al'. [trsl.: `[578] It didn't do any good that I yelled "Stop, I'm the cook". [579] I'd say he was in a bad state of drunkenness, if he was drunk at all, [580] in short, these are nice goings-on, considering there was no wood in the house, [581] he's given us wood enough for a lifetime']. The first scene of act three of the Warenar has been very much changed. Aul. 411-12 corresponds to War. 580-1. Aul. 413-14 has not been used after War. 581, but may have been used before it, i.e. in War. 579. But War. 579 can also go back to Aul. 408 although in that case it has been remarkably changed and transposed (also in respect of War. 576 which seems to be an adaptation of Aul. 409). Is it not possible then to find any more of the Aul.-lines 413-14 in the Warenar? War. 578 may be based on Aul. 413 (both have exclamations in direct speech), but then in a greatly altered form. War. 579 could be an adapted version ofAul. 4i3b ('dronckenschap' [drunkenness] - 'Bacchanal'). Aul. 414 appears not to have been translated or adapted at all. In a stage production this line gains a great deal in strength (and meaning) if it is combined with some action, like running away or fighting, which is most feasible if it is spoken as the last line of the scene. In that case it would also

i ig Numbering of lines as in Goetz, op. cit. (n. 108),pp. 47-8; text as in the Taubmann edition of Wittenberg 1605, p. 166. 120 Taubmann edition (Wittenberg 1612), p. 167 (after the explanation of Ipsus Mag.): '... Versuum autem ordinem Acidal. sic, disposuit, planiss. sententia' [trsl. : 'Acidalius has now arranged the sequence of the lines thus, plainly with good judgment']. It is of course impossible to make out from this remark what the arrangement of the lines had been (in earlier editions). 109 occur quite logically before the 'Redi, quo fugis nunc' of the following scene (Aul. 4i5a). An adaptation ofAul. 4r4 to precede War. 580 was apparently not an obvious thing to do. This passage points with a small amount of probability to a model with lines 411-12 at the end of the scene, with 413-14 preceding 4i i. In other words: Hooft had a 'bad' text in front of him and corrected it by means of omission instead of transposition (as XII does following Acidalius). The fact that Hooft in precisely this scene transposed parts of lines, omitted others and added new elements reduces the cogency of the argument in this case. On the other hand, this transposition does strengthen my hypothesis that the adapter may have had a 'bad' version of this scene in front of him. Conclusion: a slightly negative indication for XII.

7. Aul. ¢26 / War. 598 III, VI-XII: 'Pol ego haud scio quid post fiat: tuum nunc caput sentit'. [trsl.: 'I really don't know what may happen later: [but] your head is feeling it right now']. In I, II, IV and V this line is absent. War. 5g8: 'Moghelijck is misselijck, by provisie hebjet al'. [trsl.: 'What yet may be is uncertain; for the present you've got it [i.e. your thrashing] already']. Conclusion: strongly negative indication for I, II, IV and V.

8. Aul. ¢5¢ 5 / War. 63o-3 I-V: 'Co. Hem perij. Eu. abi. opera huc conducta'st vostra, non oratio'. [trsl.: Congrio. Ouch, I'm dying. Euclio. Off with you! You've been hired to do a job, not to jabber!']. VI-XII: Con. Tempori: postquam implevisti fustibus istorum caput. Eu. Intro abi, opera huc est conducta vestra, non oratio'.'2' [trsl.: Congrio. Right on time! now you've covered our heads with blows from your cudgel. / Euclio. Off with you into the house! You've been hired here to do a job, not to jabber!']. War. [630] 'Teeus. Schoon bescheyt, nouje ongs soo schendich of heb e smeert, [631] 't Hooft doet my soo seer dat ickme niet weet te laten. [632] Warnar. Jy sint e huert om te koocken, en niet om te praten, [633] Wiljet niet doen, gaet deur, ik passer niet veul op'.

i 2i Aul. 454 ('Temperi ... caput') has been added in the margin of manuscript B by a corrector BI, probably with the help of the original of Pgvwhich may have been P itself (cf.Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 17),p. 9, pp. 12-13;cf. p. 20 under 3; Lindsay, op. cit. (n. 15:1go0).p. 5; cf. Questa, op. cit. (n. P- 22 1 . 110

[trsl.: [630] Teeus. Well said, now that you've so miserably thrashed us, [63 1] my head is so sore I don't know how to hold myself. [632] Warnar. You've been hired to do the cooking, not to chat, [633] if you don't want to do it, go away, I don't much mind']. Can the Warenar have had a model in which Aul. 11. 454 and 455 were condensed (as in I-V)? Yes and no. Yes, because the text spoken by Teeus can to a large extent be traced back to other lines: the beating of War. 630 may have been got from Aul. 409 or 422. That it concerns his head (War. 631) can (also) be found in Aul. 425-6 or 440. That his head is sore (War. 631) may be based on 'Hem perij'. In so far as these elements have not been fetched from elsewhere they may have been invented, War. 635 is after all also new (for the sake of the rhyme?). Moreover, the 'Intro abi' of the variant has not been adapted, perhaps the 'abi' (of the condensed version) has, in: 'Wiljet niet doen, gaet deur ...'. After all, in place of what he says in 1. 633 Warnar could have said something like 'ga naar binnen' ['go inside']. This had already been specified in War. 626 (Aul. 451) and in War. 62g (more or less Aul. 452). The 'Wiljet niet doen' does look like an attempt to make use after all of the 'abi', whereas, had the text read 'intro abi' this could have been translated without further ado. But what follows pleads in favour of the version given in recensions VI- XII. The 'Tempori' (or 'temperi') of Aul. 454, which occurs only in the uncondensed variant, bears the same ironical indignation as the 'Schoon bescheyt' of War. 630. 'Temperi (abl. of tempusl'22 means something like 'at the right moment, well on time', while 'schoon bescheyt' can be explained as 'a nice thing to say', 'well said'. The 'postquam' has the same value in Plautus as 'nou' has in Hooft. The rest of the sentence also corresponds to War. 63ob. The whole Plautine passage can be found in the Dutch play. War. 630-1 is an adaptation of Aul. 454, War. 632-3 of Aul. 455, while War. 62 i-g is more or less an adaptation of Aul. 449-53 and War. 634 can be equated with Aul. 456. To sum up, in my opinion War. 630-3 can possibly be explained from a condensed Aul. 454-5 (as in I-V). However, the 'schoon bescheyt', which has the same impact as 'temperl', as well as the references to the beating and to the head in this passage (although both occur already earlier and more than once in the Aulularia) make it more likely that a recension was used in which these elements are explicitly mentioned here. Conclusion: a slight preference for a model with Aul. 454 and 455 (VI-XII) in which case War. 633 can be explained as an adaptation - i.e., in anticipation of the sequel (War. 639) 'intro abi' has been made into its opposite. There- fore, a slightly negative indication for I-V. 122 'Temperi' is a locative(comparable to 'heri', 'vesperi' and 'luci' (Aul.7q.8)): 'nicely on time [you allow us to go in]!'!' III

9. Aul. 547 / War. 769b I-V, X-XII: 'Eu. Illud mihi verbum non placet: quod nunc habes'. VI-VII (in the margin): 'Eu. Illud verbum non mihi placere, quod nunc habes'. VIII and IX lack this line. [trsl.: 'Euclio. This word is not to my liking: "what you've got now"'J . War. 769b: 'Dat woord staetme niet aen'. [trsl.: 'I don't like this word']. Conclusion: strongly negative indication for VIII and IX.

/0. Aul. 73r / War. rog2/3 I-III, VI-XII: 'Eu. Quis homo hic loquitur? Ly. Ego sum. Eu. Immo ego sum miser, & misere perditus'. [trsl.: 'Euclio. What man speaks there? Lyconides. It's me. Euclio. No indeed, I am wretched and wretchedly done for']. IV and V: 'Eu. Quis homo hic loquitur? Ly. Ego sum miser. Eu. Immo ego sum miser, & misere perditus.' [trsl. : Euclio. What man speaks there? Lyconides. I am (the) wretched (fellow). Euclio. No indeed, I am wretched and wretchedly done for']. War. iog2-3a: way. Wie heb ick daer? Ritsert: My ocharmen. / War. Ochar- men mach ick segghen'. [trsl.: War. Whom have I got there? Ritsert: Me, wretch that I am. War. Wretch is what I can say of myself]. This variant has no great weight either way. In the version with 'Ego sum' the joke lies in the absurdity of Euclio's reaction (Tmmo ego sum miser ...'); in the version with 'Ego sum miser' the reaction remains funny - if I understand it correctly -, but is less absurd. All the manuscripts have 'Ego sum'. The Aldine recensions wanted humour rather than absurdity, or they assumed a corrupt text. Meursius and Acidalius followed and also defended 'ego sum miser'. Gruter apparently favoured the absurd of the original version. According to him there is far more nicety (veneres) in a text which omits the first 'miser', no doubt also because the duplication of the full 'ego sum miser' is rather dull. The views of Gruter as well as of Meursius are included in the commentaries of both Taubmann editions (X and XII).I23 To

r2g Under Quoittanta M. the 1605Taubmann edition, p. igi, has: 'Prisc. & ed. Brix. & Ald. 1. Quoi tanta mala maestitudoobtegit: non, maestitudoque.quod Plautinius videtur Meursio. Ita in praecedenti versu mutila sunt verba Lyconidae. scrib. Ly. egosum miser.Et ita est in vulgg. nec aliter potest: apparet ex responsione Euclionis, cum dicit, se potius miserum esse, cui tanta mala obtigissent. Meursius.quod tamen improbat Gruterus,& millecuplo [read: 'milleduplo?'] plus Venerum subesse putat, si excludamus illud miser,quod nulli agnoscunt MSS....' [trsl.: 'Early editions, the edition of Brescia [1506; I5I0] as well as the Aldina, read: Quoitanta mala maestitudo obtegit;not: maestitudoque,which seemed more Plautinian to Meursius. In the same way the words 112 assume that the adapter would have been unable to arrive at the wording used by him (in the Warenar) if he had a text with merely 'Ego sum' would be a denial of his abilities. The adaptation is excellent. That 'ocharmen' nevertheless occurs twice and humour has been preferred to total absurdity, might perhaps point to a model with two times 'miser'. One could however also assume: Hooft knew both readings. That he decided in favour of a joke which corresponded with one of the two Latin versions did not signify textual criticism on his part, but was at that moment for him the most effective - not the most self-evident - adaptation. Conclusion: a slight preference for IV and V; also for X and XII provided the commentary has been consulted. ii. Aul. 735b / War. io99 I, III-V, XII: 'Quid ego emerui adolescens mali ...' [trsl.: 'What have I done to deserve such ill, my lad?']. VI-XI: 'Quid ego de te merui adolescens mali ...' [trsl.: 'What have I done to you to deserve such ill, my lad?']. II: 'Quid abs te ego emerui adolescens mali ...' [trsl: 'What have I done to deserve such ill from you, my lad?']. War. iogga: 'Waer heb ickt anje verdient?'. [trsl.: 'What have I done to you to deserve this?']. It is probable that a model with the express 'de te' has been followed. Otherwise (from a model without 'de te') Warnar could have used the less emphatic 'waar heb ik het aan verdiend' ('how have I deserved this'). Conclusion: a negative indication for I, III-V, and XII; a slightly negative one for II, therefore a positive one for VI-XI.

CONCLUSION

Of the eleven examples provided above, only the cooks' scene (example 4) failed to yield a result from which a selection of recension could be made. Half the remaining ten examples result in strong to very strong indications. Various editions can now be excluded in a sequence of diminishing importance. On the strength of example 7, those recensions which lack Aul. 426 (I, II, IV and V) can be discarded. On the strength of example g, the recensions which do not contain Aul. 547 (VIII and IX) can also be discarded. The recensions which do not assign Aul. gi to Staphyla (example 2) are unlikely; of Lyconides in the preceding line are mutilated: [Meursius is speaking:] 'with a text-critical intervention I render it as: "Lyconides: egosum miser". And so [Meursius is still speaking] it is found in the generally available texts [i.e. in the Aldine editions (IV and V) and (followingthem?) in the commentaries of Acidalius and Meursius (cf. Goetz, op. cit. (n. io8), p. 82)]. Nor can it be otherwise: this is evident from Euclio's reply when he says that it is rather he who is miser,because so much misery has struck him'. Meursius.[Taubmann goes on:] Which Gruter rejects; for he is of the opinion that there will be many times more [?] nicety in it if we get rid of this 'miser' for which there is no confirmation in any of the manuscripts.] 113 these are VI-XII. X and XII however remain possible provided the commentary has been consulted. The recensions which do not have a 'de te' or 'abs te' in Aul. 735b are unlikely (example i i); these are I, III-V and XII). The recension which in Aul. 34g-62 gives text to a cook is unlikely (example 5); this is XII. Recensions I, II, IV, V, VIII and IX can therefore be discarded. XII is three times unlikely (twice if the commentary has been followed). III, VI, VII and XI are once unlikely. There remains X, provided its commentary has been consulted. On the strength of these indications it is the 1605 Taubmann edition (X) which was the model for the Warenar. This conclusion finds further support in the slighter indications which in themselves do not carry much weight. The recension which in Aul. 85 lacks 'me' (example i) has not been the preferred model; this is II. The recensions which condense Aul. q.54-5 to a single line (example 8) have not been the preferred model: these are I-V. The recensions which in Aul. 73rb have 'ego sum' (example 10) have not been the preferred model; these are I-III, VI-XII. X and XII remain possible, provided its commentary has been consulted. The recensions which in Aul. 106 have 'si' (example 3) were not the preferred model; these are VI-X. X remains possible if its commentary has been consulted. The recension which does not make Aut- 4.I I-I2 the last lines of the scene (example 6) has not been the preferred model; this is XII. We see that X remains possible as long as its commentary has been drawn on three times. Recensions III, VI, VII, XI, which on the strength of the stronger indications had been unlikely on one occasion, are now on two occasions the edition not used by preference, except for XI which was on one occasion the edition not used by preference. On the basis of the above I consider the 1605 Taubmann recension to be the edition used by Hooft.'24

(Translation Anna E.C. Simoni)

SUMMARY

This article examines the question which edition of the Aulularia of Plautus P.C. Hooft used when he adapted this Latin play to the Dutch comedy Warenar (1617). The method followed consists in an analysis of (1) manuscripts and (2) printed editions of the comedies of Plautus from the editio princeps (1472) to 1617. By selecting relevant passages in the Aulularia and comparing these in all Aulularia recensions with the Warenar, a process of elimination leads to the edition which probably served as the model. 124 This recension is known only in this edition. A word by word comparison of the 1605 Taubmann and the 1566 Camerarius editions did not alter this conclusion: nowhere in the Taubmann edition, apart from the passages dealt with, did I find such a discrepancy that the conclusion drawn here should have to be revised.